T Nation

Anti-CIA Rant


A big thing going on right now in the UK is the fact that 400 unmarked US flights have landed at 18 British airports over the last year, even making an appearance on Prime Ministers questions today (the issue, not the aircraft, but that would've been cool to see a plane in parliment). There has been no declaration as to what they were doing, they just came and dropped off whatever it was. Talk now is that some of these were 'torture missions' in the light of 'revelations' that the CIA were holding and torturing prisoners in the hundreds of US bases and installations around the world. A precedent was already set when the US held prisoners 'outside jurisdiction' in camp X-ray, Cuba. They have set up a 2 tier system in which only some people are worthy of full human rights, those who are deemed unworthy are secretly shipped around the globe for more sinister investigation.

How, under this banner can the US then wax lyrical about human rights? How can it claim a moral high ground over Iran or North Korea when it is so tainted itself? How even can it hold the moral high ground over Saddam Hussein? Now the answer may be that the US isn't quite as bad as these places, or in fact is a fair step better, but when added to the covert operations which have killed thousands in Central America, the support of many East Asian dictators, the installation of Hussein himself, the support of the Taliban against the USSR, the continued military occupation of countless areas like Okinawa and the lax attitude to worthy plights such as the Sudan, Chechen and Northern Irish situations over the years, we have nothing but a crisis of legitimacy. Whilst it seems all to easy for Westerners to forget, right-off, excuse and re-work this hypocracy I have no doubt that those disillusioned with the US see reality for what it is- that the US government (and much of Europe for that matter) has no legitimacy in its quest to 'lead and democratise' the world. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate our hypocracy.


Why do people insist on posting rants that mix fact and fiction?


Yup, they are starting to sound like the US government....


our government doesnt LIE, how dare you, why dont you just turn a blind eye to those things you call lies, its so much more comfortable.... the sheep on here will tell you so.


Zap's right on this one. Believe what you will about any government, this post is even internally conflicted:

1) If the secret shipments are so secret, how does everyone know about 400 "unmarked" flights in and out of the UK? Not very secret to me.

2) In order to keep these torturings a secret, the CIA employs/requisitions en masse skilled pilots, air crews, and security personel to move these detainees out of the Middle East, where we HAVE successfully tortured them and could continue to do it much more cheaply and easily.

3) To further ensure secrecy, not only does the CIA fly them out of the Middle East, but it flies them into the UK?

As for the "U.S. and the moral high ground" rant, do you know the three deadiliest rulers in human history? Zedung, Stalin, and Mao, in that order. Hussein, while bad, hasn't accumulated 1/10th of even Hitler's numbers. And if you want to mark Putin as responsible for Chechnya, he's not even 1/10th of Hussein. And I don't know what you're talking about in Northern Ireland, even if there were something of a global scale going on there, I don't see how it's US jurisdiction. I think the US has got it's priorities pretty straight as far as human rights goes and while mistakes have been made and evils had been chosen, often they were the lesser.


Ranting Europeans...perhaps a sobering dose of thought from a source other then the MSM will brighten your day.

A critique of the news the US and Europe is getting from the MSM follows. An explanation of European and Democratic cynicism is also thoughfully provided.

From James Dunnigan:

Reporting What You Want, Not What You See.
December 16, 2005:

A story slowly creeping into the news is the disconnect between what American troops experience in Iraq, and what is reported back in the United States, and the rest of the world. For U.S. troops, who are reenlisting in record numbers, even after multiple tours in Iraq, they are fighting a war they are winning, and they see the evidence of this all around them. You?d think that this would make a good story, but it doesn?t. The war on terror, and especially the war in Iraq, have got caught in the middle of other political conflicts. In the United States, the Democrat Party, out of power after nearly half a century, are eager to get control of the government once more, and agreeing about victory in Iraq is not seen as helping their cause. The American mainstream media, needing bad news to keep their ratings up, opt for the Democratic Party view of things.

The hostility from the rest of the world is easier to understand. With the end of the Cold War, everyone will naturally gang up on the lone superpower. Add to the mix all those disappointed Soviet Union fans looking to relive the good old days, and you have a mass of hostility looking for an outlet. America makes the perfect villain, because it?s one that isn?t really a threat. The U.S. will not only take the heat, but continue to be a good trading partner and be quick with a helping hand if anyone gets in trouble.

What the troops think, and experience, is something that can be ignored for the moment. If it becomes too obvious that reporting victory in Iraq cannot be avoided, then the media depends on the fact that the media reports the present, not the past. The media works on the assumption that its readers have no long term memory. Thus there would be a flurry of stories on how all is well in Iraq, and then on to the next headline grabbing disaster. This happened right after the 1991 Gulf War, and right after the three week invasion of Iraq in 2003. History and punditry do not mix.

What the troops see is the majority of Iraqis glad to have them there, and Saddam gone. But the troops also see that Saddams thousands of thugs, and the Sunni Arabs in general, are still free, and fighting to regain the power that Saddam lost for them. While the American media and the rest of the world rabbit on about ?the Iraqi resistance,? the troops note that the Iraqis who are still killing, are the same ones who did so for decades while working for Saddam. American troops are killing bad people, not Iraqi ?freedom fighters.? Future histories will wonder at how the media was able to carry off their charade for so long. But so far they have, although it?s becoming more difficult as more people get their news from the Internet, where the troops have more of a voice. Not just with blogs and email, but with the different attitudes of web based news organizations. Less burdened with old habits (the only good news is bad news), they also have demographic advantages. Younger people are more often getting their news from the web, rather than TV or paper. At least people the same age as the soldiers know what?s really going on.

As a practical matter, the military can?t do much to get the true story out. Actually, the mass media is already backing off from their Iraq coverage, because of a combination of too much good news, and too much alternative coverage from the troops, and Iraqis themselves. Good news is no news. Moreover, the large number of people who have bought into the idea that Iraq was a mistake, evil, and a defeat, that there will long be an audience for revisionist historians, who will invent alternate realities of what really happened in Iraq.

What the history books will report will be how the battle for Iraq brought democracy (which al Qaeda outright condemns) to the Middle East, and forced Islamic terrorists to show their true colors (fanatic butchers, who don?t much care who they kill.) This led to a sharp decline in al Qaeda?s popularity, and a renewed enthusiasm for democracy throughout what al Qaeda considered their home base. Militarily, it?s known as ?taking the war to the enemy.? It?s an ancient strategy that still works. But that was rarely reported, for now. You'll just have to wait.


Secret events are only secret until somebody finds out about them. However, at this point they are still referred to as "secret" because at the time the events took place...they were secret.

Not sure what your point is, but military personnel are required to sign documents swearing to not divulge certain information. In any case, who's telling you the pilots new what they were transporting?

It's speculation whether they were flying prisoners or not. What's pissing people off around these parts is that unmarked planes were secretly landing and taking off from British ground. And if you're flying half way across the world, you might need to refuel at some point; a good place to do it is in a country that's all too happy to let you fly your unmarked plane into one of their airports and keep their mouth shut about it. This also pisses British people off.

This has nothing to do with anything. A leader that is responsible for the death of 1 man has killed 1 man too many. Why do you bring out the Deadliest Rulers Top 10?

He's probably talking about American money having helped fund the IRA terrorist group.

And how is Iraq US jurisdiction...?

I wish I could believe you, mate. Unfortunately, I don't think that sticking your fingers into other countries' politics (to their detriment) is a lesser evil.


You have no idea about all the things people can't see when they don't want to. There are several small US air transport companies that routinely do flights for the CIA. While I cannot say whether the claims of rendition flights to eastern Europe of non Europeans are true, it is clear that people living in Europe, including at least one of own citizens have been kidnapped and flown to Afghanistan.

This last would to me seem like a clear-cut of kidnapping. Secy Rice did apologise for what she said was a mistake when visiting Germany last week, but it remains a criminal act, punishable by several years in prison. Don't worry, our prisons are reasonable accommodations. So, the remaining question is: How many guilty parties are there?

Do we stop at the team that snatched the man, or perhaps add the aircrew? Should we include the ops people in Langley? Or the people who issued the permission? Political level? Oh, I forgot, "They didn't know".

I am sorry, Let every man take responsibility for their own actions and omissions, and for God's sake let's have less of mealymouth analysts arguing the definition of torture.

Now tell me: WHY THE HECK DIDN'T YOU ELECT MCCAIN? At least there stands a man.


John Gullick is living proof as to why the Brits are our junior partners.


I am European and I rant occasionaly, but I have no idea what a "MSM" is....


MSM = Main Stream Media


Thank you!

Well thats a wishy-washy kind of label, isn?t it?

You could stick that on anything you don?t like, just like the term "liberal" is used in the US...


I know there are a million reasons to hate American foriegn policy, but are you being serious with this one?


It defines the large media outlets that provide most of the information to the consumer such as ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN.
It's rather descriptive and accurate, why do you think it is wishy washy?


Have to ask the Okinawans about that. Are there any Okinawans here?


My point was, and I made it poorly, is that the United States is not occupying Okinawa. They ARE occupying Iraq. If the Japanese Gov. decided to boot American troops out of the country, they would be gone. I think a term like military occupation does apply to America's prescence in Iraq, and does not apply to Germany or Japan, and it's important to distinguish between the two.


I read a thread that was an anti SAS rant some years ago, on a US forum because allegedly the SAS were involved in the Waco seige and they used ' homicidal commando techniques'. I don't know the truth behind this, but its always hard making judegements based on how little we do know.



if you strictly define MSM by their target audience, the mainstream, it probably isn?t.

However, the more conservative posters here often use MSM in the same slightly derogatory way they would use the word "liberal" which makes me think the term MSM describes a certain way of reporting things and not just target audiences or market shares.


They define themselves as mainstream media. Market share being the most determining factor. A blog for example would not be considered mainstream.

Why do you think it is derogatory to refer to someone as a liberal? If I called you a liberal European would you be insulted?


I would not be insulted but I would have no idea what you mean...

I always thought of myself as a liberal, meaning I never wanted anyone to tell me how to live my private live or how to run a business.

In the US that would probably make me a moderate republican, though I would decribe myself as a libertarian to an American.

In Europe however, a neo-liberal is allmost a demonic entity, a conservative entrepreneur-type person that somehow does not understand that he should open and run a business to create jobs and to finace the welfare state and not to make some money... He should also follow all the rules and regulations while doing that, the entrepreneurial risk however is entirely his...

So, if I call myself a liberal European in Europe I would probably get attacked by people most American conservatives would call "liberals".

From now on I shall be a "jeffersonian-minarchist" who believes in public schooling and basic public health services to level the playingfield.